Nobody doubts the incredible bravery of Lt. Alonzo Cushing’s final stand during Pickett’s Charge at Gettysburg on July 3, 1863.
Twice wounded, he continued to direct cannon fire against advancing Confederates until he was killed by a fatal shot to the head. It was his death that kept him from receiving the nation’s highest award for battlefield bravery, the Medal of Honor.
On Thursday, President Obama will award the medal to Cushing’s closest living relatives in a White House ceremony, fixing what supporters say is a 151-year-old injustice. Cushing, who was 22 when he died, had no children, and so much time has passed since his death that the award ceremony, originally scheduled for September, was delayed to allow officials to locate relatives to receive the medal.
But despite the clear record of his bravery, Cushing’s Medal of Honor is controversial. Congress, which had to approve the award, rejected it in 2012 before finally approving it last year. Many historians and lawmakers argue that it’s a bad idea to reopen old cases.
“My fear with all of this is there’s going to be all kinds of people coming out of the woodwork,” said Civil War historian Eric Wittenberg. “Do we want to open up that can of worms all these years later?”
To see why, one need look no further than Cushing’s own brother, Navy Cmdr. William Cushing, who led a daring torpedo raid behind enemy lines that destroyed the Confederate ironclad Albemarle on Oct. 27, 1864, and also was never awarded the medal. Now that Alonzo Cushing will receive the award, a campaign has started on William’s behalf.
In both cases, the shifting rules that guided awards of the Medal of Honor until strict standards were written into law in 1918 prevented a previous award. By dying, Alonzo Cushing became ineligible because the medal was presented only to living recipients at the time. And the Navy awarded the medals only to enlisted sailors in the Civil War, leaving William Cushing out as well, though he did receive a formal resolution of thanks from Congress — a rare honor that was considered much more prestigious at the time.
“The Medal of Honor was a lesser award at the time of the Civil War,” said Jamie Malanowski, author of a just-published biography of William Cushing.
The Medal of Honor was established during the Civil War and 1,520 were eventually awarded for actions in that conflict — almost half of the 3,492 medals that have been awarded overall, according to the Congressional Medal of Honor Society. The looser standards opened the door to awards for reasons other than bravery — including politics.
The most egregious example of that was Maj. Gen. Dan Sickles, a member of the House from New York City both before and after the war and a leading figure in the Tammany Hall Democratic political machine that ran the city. Sickles was awarded the medal after a controversial action during the battle of Gettysburg in which he advanced his corps in defiance of orders. The corps was wiped out in a Confederate attack during which he was wounded and lost his right leg. Because of his wound, and his political connections, he was hailed as a hero rather than disciplined.
In 1863, all 864 members of the 27th Maine Regiment were awarded the medal for agreeing to stay on duty after their enlistment had expired.
After the war, the crush of hundreds of Civil War veterans applying for the medal and concerns about the low standards for its award led to a review board in 1917 that revoked 911 medals, including those to the members of the 27th Maine. In 1918, a new law limited the award of the medal to those who risk their lives “above and beyond the call of duty” in actual combat, and set a two-year time limit on recommendations for the award.
Since then, however, there have been many campaigns to reach back into the past, most notably to honor bravery that was ignored or overlooked because of racial or ethnic prejudice. Many recent awards have been in that category. For example, former Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, was awarded the medal by President Bill Clinton in 2000 for his actions in World War II.
But historians, lawmakers and defense officials have raised concerns that going beyond that point risks a new outbreak of the chaos the 1918 law was designed to relieve.
Former Sen. James Webb, D-Va., who blocked approval of the award for Alonzo Cushing in 2012, noted at the time that “it is impossible for Congress to go back to events of 150 years ago to make individual determinations in a consistent, equitable and well-informed manner.
“While one would never wish to demean any act of courage, I believe that the retroactive determination in one case could open up an endless series of claims. The better wisdom would be for Congress to leave history alone.”
